Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!amsnews11.chello.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <8931189.SEqChMirdb@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:26:56 +0100
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Subject: Re: calling function within (function() {...})();
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <j-mdnaRhWZiHRS7TnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@westnet.com.au> <j90o0s$vmv$1@dont-email.me> <m21utoav44.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> <8928443.SEqChMirdb@PointedEars.de> <c33a9a84-24ce-4a09-9935-0ed910fab9ea@x8g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <2015534.YEL58v44cs@PointedEars.de> <m2ipmt1542.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>
Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Nov 2011 23:26:56 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 95817414.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=_UlM?i2hWh=Tia]Ho99G504IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;Qce:MKiA0>5DZm8W4\YJN<;?f@h5gMfb<Y[TTlf5:kj3QP9QHXof1^<
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.javascript:8243

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> [function declarations vs. methods in ‘private’ scope]
>> Any potential safety gained this way only mitigates the unnecessary,
>> potentially harmful dependency introduced by Eric with the closure (by
>> contrast to the rather clean, original code).
> 
> The whole purpose of the clean, original code was to introduce closures
> at some point.

Apparently you have either not read or not understood the FAQ notes.  Yes, 
introducing a closure was the intent of the original code.  A useful one.  
*One*.

> Well, either that, or there was a useless – albeit refreshingly clean –
> function expression.

You are still missing the point.
 
>> It should be this.b(),
>> not x.b().
> 
> It must be exhausting, having all those opinions. :-)

Ignorance must be bliss.


PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)